I think that this is what I have an issue with. Is saving lives worth perhaps setting aside standards that our country has historically held?
Saving American lives from foreign acts of aggression is possibly the most important responsibly charged to the federal government.
But I take issue with the rest of this statement-I don't think that the enhanced interrogations represent a "setting aside" of any standard. I have absolutely no objection or shame regarding the way in which they were used.
And referring to "historic standards" is silly- again either naive or dishonest.
I could make a good argument that, historically speaking, we'd just execute these people. Historically speaking, we're being ridiculously kind and accommodating to these terrorists. When they caught 8 Germans planning to blow up American targets, they killed 6 of them.
Whether they were tortured, coerced, aggressively handled, we don't know. No one was trying to smear FDR or hurt America like they are now.
So, yes it's worth doing.
No, it doesn't represent an abandonment of our values.
Framing the issue as such has been an effective tool used by those that hate our country. It's become an effective club, when handed to the fifth column in the media, to batter our country with and smear our reputation with.
Geez, it's so ridiculous hypocritical and insulting to hear progressive rail about our historic standards when from the other side of their mouth, they embrace and damn near worship people like Woodrow Wilson and FDR, President's who embraced fascist policies and wouldn't have extended any of the protections or constraints to enemy combatants like this.
Is it Cal - is it OK to set aside what this country has traditionally stood for, even when the results are terrible?
1- this is not an abandonment of anything we stand for.
2- the results are not terrible, they have saved lives.
Unfortunately, leftist propagandists and the media have spun the story and used it as a bludgeoning tool to damage the past President and our country.
The enhanced interrogations haven't hurt the country, the effective propaganda, often times repeated by you, may have.
We have court martialed American soldiers during the Vietnam was for waterboarding Vietnamese soldiers.
You're making a false association here.
American solider are not being accused of "water boarding" or using the other enhanced interrogation methods being discussed. These enhanced interrogations were legal, they were done with the authority of the President, they were done with the knowledge and funding of Congress, and they were done specifically on high value targets in an effort to collect critically needed information. This was done after an attack on the homeland that caused billions of dollars in damage and cost over 3,000 lives, and in an atmosphere where we had a decimated intelligence agency that was suffering a huge intelligence deficit.
When do we actually say that we believe we have the right to torture our enemies.
We didn't torture our enemies, we merely used "
enhanced interrogation" tactics. You should stop using the word "torture" because it's not an accurate term. Is playing Barney music torture? Is merely putting a high value prisoner in an uncomfortable situation torture? Is scaring a person torture? Is doing it all with strict adherence to the law with medical personal on hand really torture?
By the way, did you ever see the Daniel Pearl video?
You know the animal, the one that cut his head off. The one that held it up to the camera. That's one of the guys who was waterboarded.
Did you see the Nick Berg video? How about the Jack Hensley video? There are so many more, we just don't hear about them or even acknowledge them anymore. Well, those people are outraged! OUTRAGED! That we put someone in a chilly room!
We may save American lives, but at what cost? Our beliefs and our views have always come at a high cost. How high will the cost be as the world starts to view us as 'torturers'? It might be higher than the cost when we held ourselves to a standard that did not allow torturing (of any type) of our prisoners.
No, but the propaganda you are perpetuating DOES have a cost.
And IT can be used against us.
And all of those terrorists who are released, in better condition than they were captured, from their comfortable stays at Gitmo, with good food and full medical care, know this. And immediately after release they run to a socialist, anti-American, socialist journalist from the U.S. or Europe and fabricates some kind of horror story that the University brainwashed reporter we'll repeat and broadcast without scrutiny. And you'll now find stories like this being reprinted around the world: "Torture Memo Reveals Brutality of American Imperialism."
I have always believed that we hold ourselves to the highest standards in the world. This behavior is not 'the highest standard' in the world.
If you believe that, you are very foolish.
I'd like to know what country really has a higher standard.
Not a higher, public statement inconsistent with what they do, but actually apply a higher standard. Because, based on the memos, the reports, and everything else, I'm really quite shocked by HOW MUCH restraint, control, and thoughtful, legal deliberation took place.
And I'm disgusted by how people like the ones shaping your opinion, are so insistent on presenting this story like the CIA was using hot branding irons and pulling out finger nails.
Obama's National Intelligence Director says that the enhanced interrogations worked:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html
April 22, 2009
Banned Techniques Yielded ‘High Value Information,’ Memo Says
By PETER BAKER
WASHINGTON – President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.
“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.
Admiral Blair sent his memo on the same day the administration publicly released secret Bush administration legal memos authorizing the use of interrogation methods that the Obama White House has deemed to be illegal torture. Among other things, the Bush administration memos revealed that two captured Qaeda operatives were subjected to a form of near-drowning known as waterboarding a total of 266 times.
Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
“I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,” he wrote, “but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.”
A spokeswoman for Admiral Blair said the lines were cut in the normal editing process of shortening an internal memo into a media statement emphasizing his concern that the public understand the context of the decisions made in the past and the fact that they followed legal orders.
“The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."
Admiral Blair’s private memo was provided by a critic of Mr. Obama’s policy. His assessment could bolster Bush administration veterans who argue that the interrogations were an important tool in the battle against al Qaeda.
Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency under Mr. Bush, said on Fox News Sunday last weekend that “the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer. It really did work.” Former Vice President Dick Cheney, in a separate interview with Fox, endorsed that conclusion and said he has asked the C.I.A. to declassify memos detailing the gains from the harsh interrogations.
Several news accounts, including one in the New York Times last week, have quoted former intelligence officials saying the harsh interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, a Qaeda operative who was waterboarded 83 times, did not produce information that foiled terror plots. The Bush administration has long argued that harsh questioning of Qaeda operatives like Zubaydah helped prevent a planned attack on Los Angeles and cited passages in the memos released last week to bolster that conclusion.
The White House would not address the question of whether the tactics have been effective on Tuesday but fired back at Mr. Cheney. “We’ve had an at least two-year policy disagreement with the vice president of the United States,” Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary. “That policy disagreement is whether or not you can uphold the values in which this country was founded at the same time that you protect the citizens that live in that country.”
Mr. Obama’s team has cast doubt on the effectiveness of the harsh interrogations, but in a visit to the C.I.A. this week, the president did not directly question that. Instead, he said, any disadvantage imposed by banning those tactics was worth it.
“I’m sure that sometimes it seems as if that means we’re operating with one hand tied behind our back or that those who would argue for a higher standard are naïve,” he said. “I understand that. You know, I watch the cable shows once in a while.”
But he added: “What makes the United States special, and what makes you special, is precisely the fact that we are willing to uphold our values and our ideals even when it’s hard, not just when it’s easy.”
The assessment by Admiral Blair represents a shift for him since he took office. When he was nominated for the position and appeared before the Senate intelligence committee on Jan. 22, he said: “I believe strongly that torture is not moral, legal or effective.” But he declined to assess whether the interrogation program under Mr. Bush had worked.
“Do you believe the C.I.A.’s interrogation detention program has been effective?” Senator Christopher Bond, a Missouri Republican, asked him.
“I’ll have to look into that more closely before I can give you a good answer on that one,” Admiral Blair answered.
